Published 4:00 am, Friday, November 3, 2000

2000-11-03 04:00:00 PDT SF -- Two builders who knocked down a century-old San Francisco home without proper permits and damaged an adjacent house have been ordered to pay for an engineer's study of the neighbor's foundation and any repairs.

After an emotional Board of Appeals hearing in which commissioner Carole Cullum called the actions of builders Denis McMahon and James Nunemacher "appalling," the board voted 4 to 0 Wednesday night to tell the builders that they cannot resume work on their project until they pay for the engineer's study and any needed repairs.

The project called for major remodeling -- adding another story to a two-story home and three stories to a separate garage at 2254 Bush St.

Latest news videos

Last fall, workers used chain saws, jackhammers and bulldozers to level almost all of the house -- except its facade -- and to raze the garage. An adjacent home's deck was damaged, its foundation was apparently cracked and a new foundation on the builders' site was poured without city inspection or approval, city records show.

Neighbors of the project at 2254 Bush St. had appealed a recent decision by the Department of Building Inspection to allow the project to proceed despite the builders' conduct.

The property had been the subject of earlier negotiations involving the builders, the city and neighbors. Nothing in the March 1999 compromise approved by the city called for a demolition.

At the hearing Wednesday night, Patricia Vaughey, one of the neighborhood activists involved in the earlier compromise on the property, criticized the Building Inspection Department for failing to call a public hearing to determine whether the work on Bush Street met the code definition of an unlawful residential demolition. That move would have cleared the way for fines and a five-year ban on construction on the site of anything larger than the buildings that were knocked down.

Instead Deputy Director James Hutchinson, who handled the case, authorized the project to proceed after a delay of almost a year. The department imposed no fines on the builders.

Neighbors appealed Hutchinson's decision to let the project go forward. But they learned at the hearing that the Board of Appeals had no power to fine the builders or to make a determination that an unlawful demolition occurred. Those are decisions left to the Building Inspection Department, according to Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian.

Supporters say Hutchinson was just helping out after the builders unintentionally went beyond their permits. Critics see Hutchinson as a close ally of powerful Residential Builders Association leader Joe O'Donoghue and say in this case -- as in many others -- he was too lenient with influential builders. McMahon and Nunemacher are both members of the Residential Builders Association.

Although several association members were in the audience at the hearing, none testified on behalf of the project. The silence was in sharp contrast to some other City Hall hearings in recent years where Residential Builders Association members have spoken out vehemently on their right to build lofts and other structures.

Some sources, who declined to be identified, said association members themselves were angry at McMahon in particular for what happened on the project, but the association treasurer, Joe Cassidy, denied those reports. He also disputed any idea that Hutchinson gave McMahon and Nunemacher any special treatment.

"I would think Jim Hutchinson has helped more homeowners than anyone," Cassidy said in an interview. "Hutchinson took the case and just made a reasonable decision. He has nothing to gain from this but grief . . . and the plans (for what will be built at the site) haven't changed."

With O'Donoghue not present, the job of defending McMahon and Nunemacher fell to their lawyer, John Sanger. He told the board that although it was understandable that the neighbor living in the damaged home, Virginia Maki, would be upset about the damage to her property, "accidents happen in construction. . . . No attempt was made to do anything but carry out the plans."

Sanger's assurances did not assuage neighbors who worried about what effect the department's no-penalty approach would have on future projects.

Sanger had stated in a letter to the board that if there was any illegal demolition at the site, it was "purely technical." His assessment of the matter drew a sharp response from commissioner Cullum.

"That's like being technically pregnant," she said. "I think this is an illegal demolition, and what serves the public is when we all uphold the law. When people come in and demolish things, I believe we need to impose penalties."

Latest from the SFGATE homepage:

Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page.